Imagine this: you sit down at your home desk, palms still perspiring over the stress of your upcoming test. You’ve studied panned and drilled your brain into oblivion, but finally the moment has come to measure your academic worth. Only now, rather than squirm among peers in a college auditorium or fill a gymnasium, you are working in your own room, on your own laptop. Yet another unexpected reality of a socially distanced world.
But you're not really alone. Beyond your gaze cameras precisely track your eyeballs as you skim the test. Facial recognition scans your face and the contents of your room and measures it against a database. Microphones monitor your muffled breaths. Your keystrokes are tracked, as is your mouse, leaving literally nothing unseen.
Despite sounding like some dystopian science fiction, the above account is a present reality for millions of students around the globe. The culprit? Digital proctoring tools designed to detect signs of cheating on online courses and test. By using a concoction of surveillance software, these applications claim to be able to identify and snuff out cheating, thus preserving academic integrity.
While these applications have existed for several years in varying forms, their use has skyrocketed thanks to a global pandemic that has forced universities around the world to abruptly pivot to online learning. Now, in a mass attempt to deprive supposed cheaters an outlet for advantage, universities are flocking to these personal surveillance tools in droves despite few any real conclusive evidence of their effectiveness. In the interim, they are forcing their students to relent to a level of surveillance dictators and tyrants would wet their lips to.
Concerned test takers are speaking out in droves and new bodies of researching are questioning the ethics of these surveillance tools altogether. One of those reports, released this week by The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP) is called “Snooping Where We Sleep, The Invasiveness and Bias of a Remote Proctoring Services.” The report details step by step how many of these technologies work, the shadowy surveillance companies behind them, and the near total power they have to monitor test takers who often are left with little choice but to submit to surveillance. Examsoft, Examity, Mercer|Mettl, PSI Services, ProctorU, Proctorio, and Verificie are among the companies offering some form of proctoring surveillance to universities and in the process, changing the baseline for what’s deemed accepted.
While there were already millions of students engaged in some form of online courses before the pandemic, that number has increased exponentially. According to STOP, some 97% of college students are estimated to be enrolled in online courses this year. That's presented proctoring tool companies with an unprecedented new business opportunity as these schools, many caught unprepared for a pandemic, scramble to manage perceived cheating.
These proctoring tools generally function through a combination of three different surveillance methods: spyware, lockdown browsers and webcam access. As the STOP report notes, the spyware for most of these companies is typically installed onto a test-taker’s computer and is used to detect whether not the user moves back and forth through other applications. Presumably this would catch cheaters in the act of looking up definitions on the internet or messaging someone for help. The spyware can also record a full log of students; keystrokes and mouse clicks, leaving even fleeting, deleted thoughts logged forever into the datasphere.
Then there’s the webcams which are possibly the creepiest element of this at home surveillance. While each companies’ software may differ, most will typically use facial recognition to authenticate a user’s identity before starting a test. Then, during the test, the webcam camera is used to track the precise movements of test takers’s eyeballs. The microphone also listens for any signs of outside coaching. In some cases, according to the STOP report, test-takers are asked to use their webcam to scan their desk and surrounding area, which, because of the pandemic, often translates to their home or dorm room.
Once the test begins these tools are granted full administrative access to a student’s device which essentially grants them the ability to potentially access every document on that device. In most cases, this is used to prevent students from opening alternative web browsers or creating new documents.
All of this means an untold amount of data is being collected. According to the STOP report, these companies share, “an immense volume of sensitive student data with proctors and schools such as students’ home addresses; details about their work; parental and citizenship status; medical records, including their weight, health conditions and physical or mental disabilities; and biometric data, including fingerprints, facial images, voice recordings and iris or retina scans.” It’s unclear how long these private companies plan on storing all that data.
Detection
The surveillance tools outlined above work hand in hand with algorithms designed to detect cheating. What constitutes cheating, in the eyes of the algorithm, are the cumulative instances of questionable physical actions. Using the surveillance methods mentioned above, the tools will “flag” questionable actions and then use those to assign a risk score to test takers. Look away from the screen too often? Flag. Stare at the screen for too long? Flag. Get up to use the bathroom? Flag. In the case of ProctorU, according to STOP, the system’s AI will flag a student for a “violation” if they look away from the screen for more than four seconds or more than two times in a single minute. Sorry daydreamers.
A little note on cheating itself. Many commentators critical of proctoring tools reference research claiming fears over online test cheating are unfounded. I’ve read evidence claiming students are actually less likely to cheat working remotely than in person, and that cheating itself is actually quite rare. But this isn’t necessarily true.
While some research has suggested claims over cheating may be overblown, there’s others still claiming the contrary. A large scale study of students in 2015 found that between 26% and 34% of students cheated on online courses. In another 2009 study published in the the Journal of Educators, 73% of surveyed undergraduates said they thought cheating was easier on online classes than during in person assessments. In a separate survey of 635 students, students were nearly four times as likely to claim they considered cheating on online assessments versus in person ones.
Whether or not these proctoring tools actually cut down in cheating though is far from certain. While there isn’t great research on how well these tools are at preventing cheating, there is some on how the act of being surveilled affects test scores. A recent study from researchers at The University of Miami looked at the online test scores of 147 students, some using proctoring tools and others now. Those who were being surveilled scored on average 17 points lower than those who were not.
Back to the surveillance tools and their effects. Though these tools are being sold to universities under the allusion of being some sort of equalizer to quash the scourge of cheating, researchers argue their discriminatory nature will only lead to more educational disparity. In the Motherboard article, Shea Swauger —a research librarian at the University of Colorado Denver — said he believed such metrics could disproportionately penalize test takers with anxiety, ADHD, or other cognitive disabilities.
Swauger expanded on these thoughts even further in a peer-viewed article released earlier this year in the journal Hybrid Pedagogy. “While there can sometimes be accommodations for things like bathroom breaks, the fact is that most proctoring software’s default settings label any bodies or behaviors that don’t conform to the able-bodied, neurotypical ideal as a threat to academic integrity,” Swauger wrote.
The STOP report takes these concerns further and claims the proctoring tools may run counter to US laws protecting students with disabilities. Specifically, the report claims that using surveillance tools for testing may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, or at the least, run counter to the spirit of the law which grants special accommodations for students with disabilities. That would include a large swatch of students.
“The students whom these softwares may falsely flag are almost too numerous to count,” the reports reads. “Students with learning disabilities, students who practice self-stimulatory behavior students who are medically unable to sit still for prolonged periods of time, who must use the bathroom frequently due to a medical condition students who must care for their children, students with visual or hearing impairments, and students who may need to to administer medication during a test.”
In addition to facial recognition unfairly privileging white students, STOP argues the financial costs associated with installing webcams and other surveillance software may also disadvantage poor students. Yet again, it would seem, the classroom digital divide reappears. Students with untraditional home structures, or those living in homeless shelters face an even steeper hill to climb.
Even if one decides the privacy implications inherent to these proctoring tools are worth the implied risk, they still suffer on a practical level from cumbersome, sometimes embarrassing clunkiness.
Some of those were highlighted within another Motherboard article released this week, which focused on the proctoring company called Respondus, currently being used at Wilfrid Laurier University, in Ontario, Canada. Students using noise cancelling foam plugs were reportedly told they had to insert the plugs in front of the camera and then smack them with a hard object to prove they weren’t some other in ear device. Ouch?
In other cases, students were required to use a hand mirror, hold it to their surveillance web cam and use the reflection to prove they had not written any cheating material on their webcam.
Even more annoyingly, some students were advised to avoid taking tests in rooms with posters featuring animal or human faces, lest the algorithm confuse them for people standing in the room.
During a time where millions of American students are being forced to adapt to school online, often at home with their parents just steps away, these tools are also advising against taking tests with anyone else on the home internet. For many students with parents also working from home, this is about as realistic as healthy cigarette.
Students Pushback
While these tools have recently seen a surge in popularity because of Covid-19, they are not entirely new. And neither is the student backlash. Back in 2015, after Rutgers university mandated the use of Proctortrack in some online courses, students quickly signed a petition demanding its removal. That petition, according to the STOP report, recruited over 900 signatures.
Students at WLU mentioned about are also speaking out. At the time of his writing just over 800 students had signed a petition calling for the total removal of the technology.
It’s not just colleges that have been affected. Aspiring lawyers looking to pass their Bar exam during that Covid-19 crisis were told they would have to do so online, and under the surveillance of the program Examsoft. After facing numerous complaints over the software, a group of lawyers have requested “diploma privileges” which would grant students a provisional license to practice law until in person testing could resume.
Alternatives?
The STOP report, along with other researchers critical of proctoring tools advises universities to cease using these applications entirely. In its place the STOP reports suggests schools move back to more traditional forms of cheating prevention like the use of honor codes.
But I’m not so sure if the answer is quite so simple. Regular readers of this newsletter can accurately predict my natural disgust towards surveillance software, especially when geared towards students simply trying to get by with school, but the global pandemic has altered the equation.
I’m personally only several years out of university and I can say, with full mental clarity that cheating is real. It’s difficult to imagine a future where a traditional honor code will really stand up to the immense incentive to cheat. Remember, thanks to our perverse obsession with exams, some of these tests could make or break the lives of a student. If you were in school right now and were taking a test online, would you be more likely to cheat if you knew nobody was watching? The answer remains unclear, but the current standard, with pervasive invasive surveillance tools becoming the norm, seems unsustainable.
Thank you for sticking with me. If you like what you’ve read so far, I’d really appreciate you sharing this link with a friend or on social media.
In Other News…
1: Edward Snowden is Applying for Russian Citizenship
Edward Snowden, who reshaped the world’s understanding of American surveillance and intelligence operations, fled to Russia in 2013 after the US government revoked his passport.
Since then, the whistleblower has been walking the thinnest of tightropes, balancing out his own personal security while fighting off allegations that he leaked intelligence material on behalf of the Russian government.
Snowden is accused of espionage and theft of government property and could potentially face life in prison if he returned to the United States.
In his seven years of exile, Snowden has become a leading voice in the cyber security world. He even helped create a new anti surveillance android app.
Snowden made the announcement on Twitter last week.
Rather than relinquish his US citizenship, Snowden would gain dual US-Russian citizenship.
Snowden claimed the decision came in so that he could remain in the country following the birth of he and his wife’s first son. (Hence the admittedly creepy pregnancy photo above the two posted.)
“Lindsay and I will remain Americans, raising our son with all the values of the America we love -- including the freedom to speak his mind,” Snowden wrote. “ And I look forward to the day I can return to the States, so the whole family can be reunite.”
The news comes just two months after US President Donald Trump rambled openly about potentially pardoning Snowden.
In a disjointed New York Post interview, Trump said he would look at the possibility of a pardon, “very strongly.”
“Many people think that he should be somehow treated differently and other people think he did very bad things,” Trump told the Post.
2. Turkey Fines Tech Giants for Refusing to Appoint Censors
These “representatives” are believed to function as censors, according to the nonprofit group Freedom House.
According to Freedom House, the “new law coerces social media platforms to comply with censorship and surveillance, effectively extinguishing channels of free speech.”
Firms that don’t comply to the restrictions are reportedly subject to a 90% bandwidth cut. That would render their services all but useless.
Turkey has a long history of fining and even imprisoning dissidents on social media of speak ill of the government.
Last year, for example, a Turkish man was sentenced to 12 years in prison for criticizing the president online. While that’s extreme, it’s not out of the ordinary.
The country’s parliament moved quickly to put in place stricter social media regulation this July after several instances of prominent accounts allegedly insulted the birth of President Erdogan’s grandson.
3. Amazon Wants Cops to Livestream Your Ring Doorbell
That proposal is being tested out in a pilot program with the PILEUM and FUSUS corporations.
After gaining permission from Ring users, local police would hen be able to tap into their camera feeds and look in real time at what that camera sees.
Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba said the footage could be used to potentially track suspects and use camera to look for escape routes and getaway vehicles.
“We’ll be able to get a location, draw a circle around it and pull up every camera within a certain radius to see if someone runs out of a building,” Lumumba said. “We can follow and trace them.”
Ring has gained a shady reputation after it was discovered earlier this year that the company was partnering with hundreds of police forces around the country. It’s also the been on the wrong end of numerous privacy complaints.
Basically, at the risk of sounding too prescriptive, if you’re thinking about getting a Ring doorbell, please don’t.
And if you already have one, maybe consider getting it more acquainted with your hammer.
Here’s What Else Is News
Elections
Portland, Maine Bans Police Use of Facial Recognition
The legislation follows San Francisco and a several other US cities. Expect more to follow.
Massachusetts Just Passed a Right to Repair Law That Could Have Major Personal Data Implications
Denver and Chicago Passed Resolution Backing Community Based Broadband Internet
The moves fly in the fact of giants like Comcast and Spectrum
More News Nuggets
US Border Patrol Has put in Place Facial recognition at Detroit Border
US Cyber Command Reportedly Intervened to Stop Potential Iranian Backed Election Interference
Palantir in Talks With UK Over Covid Contact Tracing Program
Google’s Cloud Technology will Reportedly be Used to Help Create at “Smart” US/Mexico Border Wall
Security Concerns Arise After US Air ForcePurchases Chinese Drones
Fault in NHS Covid App Meant Thousands at Risk Did not Quarantine
That’s it for now. As always, please feel free to reach out to me at thestateofsurveillance@gmail.com or Mack.degeurin@gmail.com
PS: If any of y’all managed to snag an extra PS5 before it sold out in seconds, hit me up!
Byee.